> Guido: > > Actually I was attempting to find a solution not just for properties > > but for other situations as well. E.g. someone might want to define > > capabilities, or event handlers, or ... [Greg] > I'm not sure what a capability is, exactly, so I don't > know what would be required to provide one. Me neither. :-) One person tried to convince me to change the language to allow 'capclass' and 'capability' as keywords (alternatives for 'class' and 'def'). In the end I convinced them that 'rexec' is good enough (if the implementation weren't flawed by security holes, all of which are theoretically fixable). I *still* don't know what a capability is. > Or how an event handler differs from a method, for that matter. Probably by being hooked up to an event loop automatically. > But anyway, here's another idea: > > def foo as property: > def __get__(self): > ... > def __set__(self, x): > ... > > which would be equivalent to > > foo = property(<dict-from-the-suite>) > > or perhaps > > foo = property(<thunk-doing-the-suite>) > > You might also want to allow for some arguments somewhere > (not sure exactly where, though). I don't like things that reuse 'def', unless the existing 'def' is a special case and not just an alternative branch in the grammar. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4